Reference Material

Disclaimer, Copyright

The U.S.S. Mariner is in no way affiliated with, condoned or given any notice by the Seattle Mariners baseball team, who have their own website. Similarly, we have no association with the ownership group or any businesses related to the Mariners. All article text is written by the authors, all pictures are taken by the authors, who retain copyright to their works. No copying or reproduction of any content here, photographic or otherwise, is authorized. Please email us if you wish to reproduce our work.

Milton Bradley Arrested, Charged With Felony

King5 is reporting that Milton Bradley has been arrested in Los Angeles in relation to a felony on making criminal threats. We don’t have much more information beyond that, but to be honest, I’m not sure it matters much what he’s charged with in terms of his future with the M’s. Given his history with Eric Wedge, his struggles the last few years, and the team’s desire to give some young kids a chance, his tenure here wasn’t likely to last very long anyway.

Unless he is completely exonerated, I’d imagine this will be all the excuse the M’s needed to sever ties with him. Let’s not rush to judgment on whether Bradley is guilty or not, but given that he was already on pretty thin ice, this could be enough for the M’s to just throw in the towel on the Milton Bradley experiment.

Mike Ferreri adds the penal code that was violated, meaning it could have been a death/bodily harm threat.

Typical Idiot Fan on
January 18th, 2011 6:58 pm

In other words, Milton got angry and said:

“Hey, dawg. It’s on, dawg. You dead, dawg. I ain’t even bulls——-. Your kids too, dawg. It don’t even matter to me who is in the car with you. N—–, all I know is, n—–, when I see your m—–f——- a– riding, dawg, it’s on. As a matter of fact, I’m coming to your m—–f—— house.”

Liam on
January 18th, 2011 7:43 pm

The Mariners Refuse to Abuse program has taken a beating lately.

jconrad on
January 18th, 2011 7:44 pm

Sad story… have been pulling for a good ending to the Milton Bradley story. If that ever takes place, it’s no longer going to be in Seattle. That being said, I’m thrilled with the prospect of Jack Z finding an extra ~$12 mil in the checking account.

Typical Idiot, I don’t know what that was, but leave it at home next time.

Madison Mariner on
January 18th, 2011 7:49 pm

That being said, I’m thrilled with the prospect of Jack Z finding an extra ~$12 mil in the checking account.

Where will he find this extra $12 million, exactly?

Bradley is a sunk cost if he’s either a)on the 25-man and 40-man rosters or b)released. They still owe him his full 2011 salary.

Basically, they just have to find another 4th outfielder if they release him.

MrZDevotee on
January 18th, 2011 7:54 pm

Technically, they haven’t actually filed the charge yet, and the code can be enforced as either a misdemeanor or a felony. (Watch explanation here)

So until there’s more info, I don’t want to get too excited yet about a voided contract. But damn if that wouldn’t be a nice little bonus…

(And mysteriously close to my little prediction about Z letting Milton know he’s not gonna play much this year, so how do we part ways amicably?)

MrZDevotee on
January 18th, 2011 7:59 pm

Typical Idiot–
Living up to the name, are we? Comparing Milton to Elijah Dukes? And uh, why, because they’re both black, and threatened somebody?

Boy those genius cells just fire right up with the tiniest little quirky thought, don’t they?

Dumb, dude. And not necessary.

jconrad on
January 18th, 2011 8:19 pm

@Madison

This could absolutely end up being all the M’s need to void the contract. And I said “prospect of finding an extra ~$12 mil,” not that it was a done deal.

regostein on
January 18th, 2011 8:27 pm

Not much chance of voiding the contract. Here is the general wording on contracts:

The Uniform Player Contract in Baseball contains at least two clauses that would empower the Mariners to void Bradley’s deal. Paragraph 7(b)(1) authorizes a team to terminate a contract if a player “fails, refuses or neglects to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or to keep himself in first-class physical condition or to obey the club’s training rules.” Paragraph 7(b)(3) similarly lets teams terminate a contract if a player “fails, refuses or neglect to render his services hereunder or in any manner materially breach this contract.”

This is rarely initiated and almost always leads to a settlement in favor of the player when it is challenged by the union.

wsm on
January 18th, 2011 8:37 pm

Even if the M’s could void Milton’s contracf, $12 million isn’t going to buy much. The market is pretty bare right now. I suppose we’d be the front runners in the Bonderman Sweepstakes.

Chris_From_Bothell on
January 18th, 2011 8:39 pm

There’s hardly anyone of value who could help the club by now, that the Ms could spend $3m on, let alone $12m. And I wouldn’t put it past this ownership to just straight-up pocket it, leaving the payroll and roster for 2011 as-is and revisiting payroll structure from scratch next offseason.

We likely won’t know if there’s a contractual way to release Milton without being on the hook for the money anyway, until or unless it happens.

What’s being lost in this, of course, is concern for Uncle Miltie and whoever else is part of what happened. For all his problems, and how much he didn’t help the team, I was still pulling for him to get his personal life in order, at least. Here’s hoping he gets whatever help he needs, and that his family and all involved in the incident are ok.

Westside guy on
January 18th, 2011 8:40 pm

The Mariners can *try* to void the contract, but the players association will fight it and it’s not a given that the Mariners will prevail. So even if they unilaterally announce “we are voiding Milton’s contract because of egregious behavior”, I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to add $12 million to their internal budget.

Poor Milton. I was really hoping he was finally on a track to address his demons.

Typical Idiot Fan on
January 18th, 2011 9:20 pm

Typical Idiot, I don’t know what that was, but leave it at home next time.

That was what Elijah Dukes allegedly sent to his girlfriend that got him arrested for basically what Milton is being arrested for. Along with it was a picture of a handgun.

Dumb, dude. And not necessary.

Y’know what’s really “dumb” and “not necessary”? When someone doesn’t get an obvious joke and has to make a morally outraged post explaining that they didn’t get it.

Boy9988 on
January 18th, 2011 9:21 pm

Barring any performance clauses, if Milton for whatever reason is not able to carry out the terms of his contract from his end, then the Mariners are allowed to place him on the restricted list. The restricted list makes it so the Mariners do not have to pay him for the time he is on the restricted list. For instance, say that he is found guilty of this alleged crime and is sentenced to 6 months jail time. Then starting in, say February, the Mariners would only have to pay him for the final 2 months that he is able to join the team.

Wait, your “obvious joke” that you had to explain to people? That one? Are you doubling up on the “idiot”-ness tonight? That’s beyond dumb. To call a joke you have to explain to people “obvious”. Now THAT’S funny.

Boy9988 sez:
“For instance, say that he is found guilty of this alleged crime and is sentenced to 6 months jail time. Then starting in, say February, the Mariners would only have to pay him for the final 2 months that he is able to join the team.”

There are a few problems standing in the way of that scenario.
1 – Even after Bradley’s hearing date (Feb 8th?), it will take some time for sentencing in the event that he pleads guilty.
2 – The court system NEVER moves that fast.
3 – If he pleads innocent, forget about recouping any funds from the 2011 budget. The time needed for the case to be heard and a judgement served, and then the penalty being implemented… Hell, it’ll be 2012 before anything gets resolved.

Lonnie

Milendriel on
January 18th, 2011 11:01 pm

Wait, your “obvious joke” that you had to explain to people? That one? Are you doubling up on the “idiot”-ness tonight? That’s beyond dumb. To call a joke you have to explain to people “obvious”. Now THAT’S funny.

I got it immediately and thought it was funny. You didn’t think it was funny… great. Then say nothing instead of verbally attacking a respected commenter who has contributed far more than you have.

jordan on
January 18th, 2011 11:18 pm

With bail laws, and the slow moving system, and if he lawyers up well (and with his salary, he will) nothing will get resolved until after the 2011 season most likely. Which means he will be with us, with this lingering situation, and a huge paycheck all year.

I hope both Milton and his accuser are OK tonight. What a horrible situation.

It’s been a while since a deal that looked so great on paper has turned out so comprehensively awful. I’d say Zduriencik rolled snake eyes, but this is beyond the 10th percentile scenario… this is the scenario that’s only possible if the dice are made of ricin. Short of acquiring a pitcher who was carrying an airborne labrum-eating virus, I’m not sure how this could’ve gone worse. And I say this as one of the 99.9% of M’s fans who were ecstatic when the deal went down.

certaindoom on
January 19th, 2011 5:27 am

I think that the people who argued in Bradley’s favor based all on his statistical potential should learn a lesson from this whole sorry episode. Some of us looked past the stats and saw his character. I was 100% against the signing, some others were too. I *wanted* it to work out for the sake of the M’s, but I knew, I just knew. Bradley is a unique character in sports, there haven’t been too many like him, but his antics are just so far beyond normal that it was impossible not to take note.

Why did we want to buy his lifetime of trouble? If he couldn’t play for Lou Pinella why did we think he could change his ways here?

Lessons learned M’s. You don’t buy others problems, not when they are of this magnitude. Statistical potential is great, but… look where the M’s are now financially because of statistical potential because of this guy.

samregens on
January 19th, 2011 6:10 am

I never liked what I feel is the Mariner’s bent of going after talent-poor, overrated players seemingly mainly because they are clean-cut and “local boys”, however, that doesn’t mean their penchant for sometimes plucking up their courage and breaking out of their mold and unexpectedly picking up supposedly talented (but which talent is never evidenced in a Mariner uniform) guys with bad reps is endearing either.
Sigh…

With that said, it may be too early to convict Bradley. The media and public generally doesn’t like him, and I feel it is easier for such guys to get in trouble, when the crime is not something like getting caught red handed trying to rob a bank, but someone filing a charge.

And with that said yet again, in real personal life I would preferably never like to get anywhere near someone who has the problems he seems to have.

It may be worth it for the club to go through the process of restricted list, grievance and hearing even if it only saves them a few million bucks.

Not that the cash would be used to increase payroll next season, but the club being healthier is never a bad thing.

kimalanus on
January 19th, 2011 7:45 am

What Chris_From_Bothell said. From your mouth to God’s ears.

What’s being lost in this, of course, is concern for Uncle Miltie and whoever else is part of what happened. For all his problems, and how much he didn’t help the team, I was still pulling for him to get his personal life in order, at least. Here’s hoping he gets whatever help he needs, and that his family and all involved in the incident are ok.
Don’t kick ’em when they’re down.

Chris_From_Bothell on
January 19th, 2011 7:49 am

It’s been a while since a deal that looked so great on paper has turned out so comprehensively awful. I’d say Zduriencik rolled snake eyes, but this is beyond the 10th percentile scenario…

The number of Z’s players and seasons we say that about, can’t grow much further without starting to doubt Z’s abilities.

One or two deals not working out, sure. One or two players having highly unlikely and unusually bad seasons, sure.

But a pattern is emerging… the list of low-risk/high-upside players who flopped, or bad-deal-anyway-so-make-most-of-its sorts of things, is starting to grow.

Here’s hoping the 2011 crop does alright.

MrZDevotee on
January 19th, 2011 8:10 am

Hub-
Uh, no… He didn’t have to explain it to me… I got it right away. He had to explain it to someone else who didn’t know what the quote was from.

That’s what made me laugh. He said it was obvious, yet before saying it was obvious he already had to explain it to someone (not ME, but thanks for keeping up).

Milendriel-
You might think only people who agree with what your favorite posters say are allowed to share their comments, but I’m hoping that’s not really the nature of this site– and hasn’t been as long as I’ve been reading it. I prefer (obviously) when people tell others if they think something they said was in poor taste– and if you laughed, I think that was in poor taste too. So what? It’s just my opinion. If you think I’m full of crap, keep laughing. Good for you.

MrZDevotee on
January 19th, 2011 8:21 am

Chris-
I don’t think it’s becoming a pattern in any sense larger than these signings are what you’re left with when you’re hamstrung by inheriting bad contracts taking up large chunks of your budget.

I for one am hoping these aren’t the kind of signings Z would be considering under “normal” conditions.

Adam Kennedy and Jose Olivo are the same sort of signings, but I’m also hoping they turn out a little better (than Kotchman/Bradley/et.al). I’m sure it’s not fun for him either to build a team with the “least suckitude- for least $$$’s” approach…

That’s why a lot of us are looking forward to 2012, when some of the last bad contracts come off the books.

(Moments like this make me appreciate Kenji Johjima more now than when he was with the team– imagine if we still had contracts like THAT on the books… His Gil Meche moment was much appreciated… Maybe Uncle Milty will grow a heart, and do the same for us…? *A guy can dream*)

Leroy Stanton on
January 19th, 2011 8:23 am

That’s what made me laugh. He said it was obvious, yet before saying it was obvious he already had to explain it to someone (not ME, but thanks for keeping up).

He said it was “an obvious joke”. It was obviously an attempt at humor, but the reference was not obvious.

jonw on
January 19th, 2011 9:09 am

Seriously children enough! How about we stick with the theme and leave this nonsense to the playground!

G-Man on
January 19th, 2011 9:13 am

Please remember that this wasn’t a Jack Z signing, this was a trade of our albatross Carlos Silva for the Cubs’ problem child. It was a worthwhile deal, IMHO.

While the legal process could take awhile, Milton (or at least his agent) has got to realize that he won’t get ANY team to offer him so much as a NRI for 2012 Spring Training if this is hanging over his head. He would be wise to work out a deal with the prosecutor this year that has his slate clean by then. I admit not to reading all the details of his alleged crime; couldn’t he conceivably get off with some combo of probation, fine and community service?

eponymous coward on
January 19th, 2011 9:22 am

Lessons learned M’s. You don’t buy others problems, not when they are of this magnitude. Statistical potential is great, but… look where the M’s are now financially because of statistical potential because of this guy.

Let’s be fair: it’s not like Carlos Silva was some kind of prize. We swapped garbage for garbage.

That being said, when someone with a ton of talent keeps getting dumped (especially notable for doing some of the dumping: Billy Beane, who isn’t exactly the sort of GM who doesn’t get the concept of undervalued talent), it’s a bad sign.

As for Bradley getting his life fixed- I suspect it’s going to take him being away from baseball for that to happen.

Kazinski on
January 19th, 2011 9:46 am

Milton is between a rock and a hard place. The only way this isn’t the absolute end of his career is if the Mariners bring him back and let him show he can still play. If they release him, nobody else is going to give him a shot given his problems, and his performance the past two seasons, and his injury history.

There really just is no upside for a GM to take a flier on Milton, unless he can show that he can still play.

None of the case Larry Stone cited were felonies, and the players union would have a hard time arguing a felony indictment wouldn’t trigger the “personal conduct” clause. If Milton is under felony indictment, it is hard to see how he can play (see Barry Bonds), he’d need special permission from the Judge to travel, and won’t be able to make road trips to Toronto at least.

Westside guy on
January 19th, 2011 10:05 am

How are so many people forgetting that we got Milton as part of a bad contract swap? It’s not like Z said “Hey, I have 12 million to spend – let’s go get Milton Bradley!”

It worked out for Chicago, but it didn’t work out for the Mariners. That’s the way it goes. If the M’s hadn’t made the trade, there’s no guarantee Silva would’ve found the same motivation to pull it together for this past season.

I don’t think it’s fair at all to say that we saw this coming from Bradley. We could have seen a continued downswing in ability from him – he’s older, from what I gather he’s never been particularly slavish to maintaining his physique, and although Silva wasn’t even going to make the 25-man roster he also didn’t have the rep for being a clubhouse cancer (although he certainly played that role with the M’s for a year).

So, bad player, potentially. Clubhouse crap, probably (although he doesn’t seem to have done that much bad since the anger management counseling early last year). A couple stupid incidents a year that piss off the public, probably. Sitting out extended time for injury or whatever, probably. All those potential or probable bad things don’t equal committing a felony, though. That’s just stupid.

onetreehugger on
January 19th, 2011 10:39 am

I can see why the player’s association and bargaining agreement make it so hard to void a contract for something like this. If Bradley hit .286 with 30 HR last year, almost no one would be saying void his contract and dump him. It’s almost always a case where the team and fans want to dump a player for bad performance, so they use the legal problem as an excuse to try to void the contract. If guys with character flaws or emotional problems were all kicked out because of them, the hall of fame would probably be a lot smaller.

When you have a contract with a player, his performance is something you take a chance on. The whole police thing is mostly an excuse to get out of what you agreed to.

So does anyone wish we had kept Silva and his salary and problems instead of Bradley? Pound for pound, I think Silva was a better deal.

amnizu on
January 19th, 2011 10:56 am

So does anyone wish we had kept Silva and his salary and problems instead of Bradley? Pound for pound, I think Silva was a better deal.

Hindsight is always 20/20. At the time Bradley was a better fit for the team’s needs than Silva. Anyway you cut it, this was a salary swap that made sense for the two teams at the time. Chicago managed to get some value from Silva, but assuming he would have provided that same value to the M’s last season is a leap of faith I am not willing to make. In fact, based upon the performances of Fister and Vargas early in the season, I strongly doubt Silva would have been given the opportunity to start.

Maybe the M’s will get lucky and have an opportunity to avoid paying some of Milton’s salary this season, but I strongly doubt it.

Leroy Stanton on
January 19th, 2011 11:26 am

It was Silva+cash for Bradley. I believe the net effect was that Bradley would cost us $7 million over two years.

Badbadger on
January 19th, 2011 11:44 am

When you have a contract with a player, his performance is something you take a chance on. The whole police thing is mostly an excuse to get out of what you agreed to.

According to Larry Stone:

Generally, when teams have tried to void contracts in the past, they have relied on paragraph 7(b)1 of the uniform player’s contract, which states that a contract can be voided if a player “shall fail, refuse, or neglect to conform his personal conduct to the standards of good citizenship and good sportsmanship or keep himself in first-class physical condition.”

So in a sense, the player is also trying to get out of something that they agreed to; to conform to standards of good citizenship. I mean yes, you’re right, the team is trying to get out of the contract for performance reasons, but baseball is a business and if you don’t want your contract voided then you need to stick to it and not complain about the motivations of the people who are taking advantage of your contract violations. One assumes the players know when they sign their contract that that clause is going to be a lot more relvant if they suck.

I don’t fault players for going where the money is and I don’t see any reason to fault management for doing what is in the teams best interest rather than having pure motives.

Boy9988 on
January 19th, 2011 4:00 pm

@Lonnie

I was only saying that as an example about how the restricted list works, not necessarily that that particular scenario would play out. At least as far as i can tell.